As part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, I've been libeled and slandered as "an industrial-strength 9/11 conspiracy theorist."
In reality, I'm just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. My directives concerning 9/11 were very clear. "Feed my sheep."

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

I think Dr. Judy Woods – is an example of pushng to the absurd and planting doubt in even highly gulible persons. I’m not saying she’s a hired gov’t dis-informant but her theory is so implausible I think it would cause most rational persons to say, “Nahhh. She is a perfect anecdote for Dr. Steven Jones (thermite) theory which I find credible. These examples pertain to 9/11.

I have Dr. Wood's textbook and have read it from cover-to-cover. I'll be the first to admit that (IMHO) Dr. Wood purposely inserted absurd elements and distractions, which include the Hutchison Effect, free-energy from space, downplaying hot-spots, and weak nuclear analysis. In her defense, I view them as "get-out-assassination" moves. [She did lose one of her students under suspicious circumstances, and he was the one helping her with her website which kind of stagnated in 2006.]

Her book is very crafty. Those who say "her theory" obviously haven't read it, because she has little in this regard. She introduces concepts; she presents lots of evidence that any theory-du-jour has to adequately address in order to be considered valid. [Her textbook is worth the investment just for the collection of images and correlation to map positions to give one a much better understanding of the WTC destruction.] But she has nothing that ties together concepts or evidence into a cohesive whole or into a decisive statement: "this is how the WTC was destroyed." Nope, it ain't there. And also what isn't there is anything that addresses criticism of things from her website (e.g., Dr. Jenkins), which is a shame. She could have fixed errors from her website instead of re-hashing them (e.g., cars towed to bridge). She could have addressed other concepts, like those from the Anonymous Physicist and the nuclear angle. She could have included more data points, such as other videos of the expiring spire that clearly show it "telescoping" and "falling", yet to this day, the one viewpoint she uses suggests erronously "vaporization of steel".

I find it very suspicious that not a single prominent member of the 9/11 Truth Movement has ever done a chapter-by-chapter book review to highlight the "the good, the bad, and the ugly." They give sweeping dismissals using phrases like "looney", but offer scant few details. They can't afford to acknowledge the nuggets of truth contained in her textbook -- however few and far between some might claim them to be --, because those nuggets of truth are very damning.

Dr. Wood isn't as wrong as most 9/11 Truthers make her out to be, though. And she does an important job of getting people to think outside-the-box.

Why would anyone want to obfuscate such solid, in fact 'Best Evidence' such as Thermite in the dust from the WTC towers?

The problem isn't that thermite *might* have been involved. The problem is that what the cheat calls "best evidence" is really a ploy to have it been deemed the "only evidence" and for honest researchers to stop looking.

The fact of the matter is that this "thermitic best evidence" does not account for all of the observed side-effects of the destruction, from the pulverization to the maintenance of under-rubble hot-spots for many weeks. It comes up very short.

Plus, there's tritium, tritium, tritium and what proper analysis of the WTC dust reveals: correlated elements signifying involvement in the destruction and representing a recipe for nuclear hijinx.